Some 2,000 properties hit by power outage

Power cut

Some 2069 customers are currently affected by a power cut this afternoon (June 10).

Properties in Broadstairs and St Peters, and reportedly some in Ramsgate, are among those affected.

UK Power Networks says it is investigating a fault on the electricity network, adding: “We became aware of this power cut at 16:00.

“Engineers in our control room have switched some customers power back on. To get everyone’s power back on we may need to attend to investigate and make repairs.”

It has not yet been confirmed whether the outage is connected to a reported fire at the substation in Minster’s Tothill Street.


Engineers are on site. UK Power Networks has remotely diverted electricity around the faulty part of the network, restoring power to 1712 properties. This leaves 357 properties affected by the underground network fault. The aim is to have power restored between 8pm-9pm.


UK Power Networks report power restored to all properties by 11.20pm.

Find updates at:


  1. Shame we don’t have a quality service thats properly maintained considering how much we are being made to pay.

  2. Record profits being made and millions being paid to the CEOs.

    Many MPs hold a fair investment in both electricity and water companies and you wonder why regulatory measures aren’t taken?!?


  3. It’s like being back in the 70s again.
    I wonder what my dad did with the old Tilly lamp ?

  4. quite right , the 70,s was a different thing , whats going on now is just all about the greed of the directors and shareholders profiteering. the rich just get richer – thats the capatilism that is rife in this country.

      • Asterisk your a moron! I was a Central Electricity Generating Board Engineer in the 70’s (& 80’s) and there was raging inflation, which meant we had to have over 30% increase in our salaries just to stand still! 1700 CEGB engineers held a meeting in Conway hall, London and the motion to strike was put to them, and it was overwhelmingly in favour, only 7 people voted against, and we got our salary increase the next morning! Its the same today, millions of mostly essential workers are being made to take pay cuts to pay for failed Tory economic policies! Now that the slob/scruff Johnson (when will he ever learn how to tuck his shirt into his trousers, now his nanny has left?) has decided to cut and run after he has been found guilty of lying to MP’s. Fishy Rishy is trying to do the same, starve the workers back to work, with pay cuts to pay for failed Tory economic policies! The workers only hope is strong unions!

  5. Seeing as the network that brings power into our homes is not owned by the companies we buy our electric from , i’m not sure that the network operator is making the sort of money some of the suppliers are.
    It’s an underground fault are people suggesting that the buried cables are dug ip just to check they are ok and replace them just in case? That’d be hugely expensive for the ultimate bill payer.
    Though as the great net zero con goes on we’ll be in for huge additions to our bills as the grid is upgraded to cope with all the distributed generation and increased loads that heating our homes and car charging will require. The headlong rush is going to be very expensive on many fronts.

      • The absurd target of 2050 the nation has set itself to achieve net zero. The half baked plans to do so and no real estimates of the financial cost and associated effects on society. All to reduce our co2 levels which will make next to no difference on the world stage, all based around scientific models and predictions that have little understanding/ acknowledgment of the worlds natural temperature fluctuations over time.
        Fossil fuels are a finite resource and should not be squandered, we should be looking to be more efficient and seek new RELIABLE sources of energy, but to try to do so at a rate solely to try and be the green poster boy is plain daft.

        • Ah. You’re a climate change denier. So there’s absolutely no point in attempting to explain the science to you: the fact that changes to the climate over millions of years is a well-known phenomenon, from “snowball Earth” to the dry desert landscapes of the Permian. Scientists know about them.
          And the 100,000 year cycles caused by the orientation of the Earth’s orbit to the Sun. Scientists know about them.
          And the volcanoes spewing out CO2 and other nasties. Scientists know about those, too.
          They also know that no natural phenomenon yet discovered (and yes, there might be a natural cause, but no-one has found it) to explain the rapid rise in global temperatures the Earth has experienced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
          No point in explaining that when hydrocarbon fuels are burned in vast quantities, vast quantities of the greenhouse gas CO2 are produced.
          You will be unimpressed by the correlation between rising levels of atmospheric CO2 and rising global temperatures.
          But I will point out one thing to you.
          You say that “Fossil fuels are a finite resource”. That (at least) is true. At what point should alternatives to traditional energy provision be sought.
          Shall we wait till they’ve run out?
          Will it be OK till 2050?
          Should we start in earnest now?
          Maybe we really ought to have sat up and taken notice as soon as the science was clear .. ie decades ago.

          • Correlation does not prove cause and effect, there’s too much reliance on computer modelling and vested interests nore than happy to scare the electorate with tales of doom and gloom. The costs involved in our current flag waving escapade are beyond imagination but helpfully an article today puts some flesh on the bones
            How do you envisage such costs being met and then there’s the cost of as yet undetermined storage.? We missed the boat decades ago when we abandoned the UK’s nuclear capability.
            Nothing the UK does will make a jot of difference to climate change ( which at no point have i denied, rather i question the claim that it’s all about co2 and see it more as part of the earths natural cycles)
            We have the virtue signallers such as TDC who declared a climate emergency and moved its electricity supply contracts to one of the notional “ 100% green suppliers” but have next to no smart meters in their properties, rely on estimated bills ( so have no real idea of what is consumed where) make little use of dawn till dusk or occupancy swithches. Enter into agreements for buildings totally lacking insulation.
            There’s little joined up thinking. We live in a very intensive world and people are not interested in curtailing the energy they use, but are blindly wandering towards a future where the cost of energy will mean they’ll be unable to afford the lives they crave. You choose to believe the hype I don’t. We could have built a fleet of nuclear reactors and be at or around net zero by 2050 in an affordable manner, our current path is not going to achieve that without huge societal change and lowering of living standards and that’s not going to be acceptable to the wlectorate.

    • Well Lc, as a former CEGB engineer, see above, one of the moans we had was the profits made before privatisation were NOT mostly being plowed back into to power generation, and distribution! It was being leached off by various governments to alternative budgets, but at least it was mostly not finding its way into off shore shareholders pockets!

    • No, I don’t ” … choose to believe the hype”.
      I choose to give more credibility to the conclusions of scientists than the ramblings of FB “experts”.
      And, indeed, on its own, correlation does not prove causation. But coupled with other scientific certainties, it has a level of credibility.
      Even you cannot deny that:
      Fossil fuels, made up mostly of carbon and hydrogen, produce CO2 and H2O when burned;
      Both these gasses are greenhouse gasses;
      Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution humans have been burning more and more fossil fuels.
      It is undeniable then that for 200 years manking has, at the very least, been making huge contributions to the Global Warming that’s affecting us.
      And yes, solitions will be very very expensive. But how much more expensive will it be if the more excessive outcome predicted actually occur? We’re already seeing summer temperatures higher than ever recorded, with thousands of premature deaths as a consequence.
      Wild fires are sweeping north America and Scotland. Last year, a row of houses on the outskirt east London were destroyed because of wild fire.
      The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are melting. If in particular the Greenland cap melts, the world’s sea levels will go up by 20 ft. That means most of Polynesia will completely disappear (lots has already) and capital cities, including London, will be under water.
      I imagine that might cost a bob or two, if you’re worried about money.

      • 200 years on a planet that has an age in the billions is nothing more than a rounding error at anninfinite decimal place. Yep burning fossil fuels releases co2 and creates water ( do a bit of reseaerch and the water created by this is pretty much the same as needed for measured sea level rises, not proof of anything but an other ingredient for the pot) thats indisputable chemistry. Roman southern britain was much warmer than today , what was your reason for that? Man has no doubt had and will continue to have a negative effect on the planets natural state, but in the absence of limiting our numbers that’s not going to change. Wholesale electrification on the back of green energy is unaffordable and will remove peoples ability to travel outside their local area on a regular basis , the rise of the local minimart , electric scooters home working are all the precursors of massive social change, foreign holidays will at some point be an unaffordable luxury for all but a very few wealthy people, but no politician is going to proffer that news anytime soon, much better to indoctrinate the young and leave it a generation or two.

      • How many fewer winter deaths are we seeing as a result of fewer dieing from extreme cold? The net number of deaths is the important bit not one piece of data. Plus how many of the deaths of excessive heat are the morbidly obes whose bodies have been deprived of the ability to regulate themselves?

        • Well, rather than pose the question, give us the answer?
          And, are you choosing to ignore the very real threat of global sea level rise?

          • I’m merely pointing out an obvious flaw in your point about excess deaths from heat and that there’s a balancing factor that should be considered.
            Again you talk of a “threat” of sea level rise, the evidence suggests there are minimal rises to date , some will argue that plate tectonics are as much to do with measured effects as anything, we get the local believers who point to the roman coastline of thanet but ignore the natural silting and sea defences that give us today’s coastline. Relative levels are also affected on geological scales by the ice ages, which given they’ve occurred in the past are likely to occur in the distant future. Looking at the planet in a 200 year time window and forecasting from it is dishonest.
            What should we have done, invested in nuclear to expand and renew on a planned rolling programme from the 60’s on, used the fossil fuels for transport and chemical processes taken the issue of energy efficiency in buildings much more seriously much earlier, developed electric transport for urban and short journeys, used hybrid vehicles for longer journeys ( battery in urban areas modern petrol/diesel once on the open road). If we ever solve nuclear fusion then all our problems are solved.
            Personally i’d stop the current green crusade aside from those projects already well into development and concentrate on the above. But that’s not from a climate change viewpoint rather one of conserving finite resources and reducing pollution.

  6. Yep ….. build 500 new homes and bung an extension lead from the nearest sub-station, It’s bound to happen – and more to come I would imagine.

    • New homes built to a decent standard with suitable supply infrastructure are not going to be the problem, it’ll be the existing housing stock that consumes more energy to heatit that’ll place strains on the existing infrastructure that cause problems, smart meters will be part of the solution but not a popular one when people have their supplies interrupted to take the strain off the generation and distribution system.

  7. The correlation does not prove cause and effect argument really is the primary school line of choice for people who have only the narrowest grasp of scientific methodology.

    Oh but look, he’s backed it up from something he found in that great scientific journal of our times, The Telegraph.

    • The article from the Telegraph has nothing to do with the science behind it all, it’s purely about the financial cost , inherent issues of intermittent generation and the demands on the grid. It’s yourself who has chosen to conflate the two points.
      I’m quite happy to accept i’m no oxbridge scientist, my primary school understanding would roughly be summarised as,
      There are those who have concerns about rising global temperature.
      Others have noted a correlation between this rise and CO2 emmissions as a result of industrialisation largely powered by the use of fossil fuels.
      This correlation led to the hypothesis that it is increasing CO2 levels that are largely responsible for global warming ( once called Man Made Global Warming, but now referred to as climate change).
      Scientific consensus leans in the direction of the above.
      Those with the levers of power have decided they accept this consensus and make great pronouncements on the matter, which under the current direction are going to be ruinously expensive for us as a nation and do little to change the global situation.

      In just my tiny amount of time on this planet, there has been concern about acid rain , lack of oxygen because of deforestation , worries about the planet cooling and now climate change.

      That the climate changes over time is indisputable, from the fossil record, ice cores, dendrochronology, that man has had a negative effect on the planet is again plain to see , but for me personally the jury is out on global warming being largely a result of C02 from burning fossil fuels. Reducing the reliance on fossil fuels is emminently sensible and has no downside if done at a sensible pace , reducing the amount of energy we consume as a whole even more so.

      • As I said in my first response to you: you are a climate change denier. No amount of evidence will persuade you to change your view.
        However, you are correct that things like ice cores, dendrotechnology, oxygen isotopes, sea bed cores and so on show that since climate began, it has been changing.
        But what these ice cores etc show is that, throughout recorded geological time, climate change has happened over time scales of 100,000 or 1,000,000s of years. What’s currently happening is occurring in a time scale of a couple of hundred years.
        Given the three indispatable facts I outlined in a previous answer, a perfectly reasonable conclusion is that this current phase of climate change is anthropogenic.
        No one has come up with any other solution.
        And yes, it will cost mega £££. But so will rebuilding London, Paris, Washington and so on.
        And yes, there are very good reasons for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

        • Andrew, do you believe in God, and trust in the power of Jesus, our blessed savior? THAT is a far more important question than whether or not someone believes in something man-made.

    • ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑

    • There are certainly people who don’t seem to want to acknowledge that their actions are contributing to local and global deterioration (to put it mildly).

Comments are closed.